Did you give credence to some of the early polling that showed Rep. Minnick with a measurable lead?

We were ahead in all of our internal polling all the way up to the final days. Every single undecided voter broke against Walt. I'll make one comment about some of the post-election analysis: There seems to be an assumption that Democrats stayed home. The reality is that there are a lot fewer of them. The state has become a lot more red. More Democrats became independent and more independents became Republicans.

[...]

But if you did have a few minutes with some people who could rebuild the party, where would you start?

By not worrying about rebuilding the Democratic Party. The state is ruby-red Republican, and likely always will be. Any advice I would have to give would be to accept that reality and move on. Do not assume that you're going to get the state to change. It's Republican. It's conservative. Your strategy needs to be built around that reality.

In the debate about where Idaho Democrats go from here, Dave Neiwert provides a great starting point at Crooks and Liars [emphasis added].

The profile of the kind of candidate Democrats should be seeking as they work to return to full power in Congress should be someone modeled after a politician like Cecil Andrus rather than a Walt Minnick: A proud liberal who was skilled at explaining and standing up for liberal positions and policies to rural and suburban audiences because he understood that, at the bottom, these are common-sense positions -- and, if explained and marketed to voters that way, will win voters over to supporting Democratic positions instead of regurgitating Fox propaganda talking points, which is about all Republicans are capable of these days.

Thought the lame duck session would be any different for Idaho's Walt Minnick after becoming a one-term congressman in decisive fashion this month? Think again. Thursday, Minnick was one of eleven Democrats voting against an extension of unemployment benefits. The measure was brought to the floor needing a two-thirds majority to pass but fell short despite a 258-154 margin voting in favor.

According to a report by the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, allowing the extension to expire would "drain the economy of $80 billion of purchasing power" and "could hamper the fragile recovery." Extending unemployment benefits are more effective than other policies analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office for increasing growth and employment, the report says, and "every dollar spent on unemployment insurance benefits increases gross domestic product by $1.60."

Workers receiving unemployment insurance payments are typically cash‐strapped and will spend their benefits quickly. This quick spending generates a "multiplier" for the economy as a whole. Every dollar of unemployment benefits that a recipient spends can generate a cascade of spending by others, providing a significant jolt to the nation’s economy in terms of both economic activity and employment. Therefore, extending unemployment insurance benefits not only helps struggling households, but can also spur the creation of job opportunities.

The extension would help two million unemployed workers whose benefits are set to expire at the end of this month at an estimated cost of about $12 billion. Minnick has not yet publicly commented on this vote but when voting against a similar extension in July told Idaho Reporter, "I am absolutely opposed to digging the deficit hole deeper. I want to help them, but I want that help to be paid for."

Minnick has also indicated that he supports extending all of the Bush tax cuts, including those for the very wealthiest Americans. The price tag for keeping the tax breaks on income over $250,000 is estimated at $700 billion or 58 times more than the cost of the unemployment insurance extension.

It is unconscionable, under the guise of deficit reduction, to support giving the wealthiest 1% of Americans an average tax cut of over $83,000 a year that's not paid for, while refusing to help struggling middle class families stay in their homes and put food on the table.

Just how bad is it here in Canyon County?

Canyon County is currently suffering the worst unemployment since at least 1991, with a double-digit rate of 10.4%. That's down from a peak of 13.2% in January but still more than two points above the unemployment rate of 8.3% for the state.

Heading into the cold winter months, with the first snow falling today, the anecdotal evidence of families struggling is everywhere. Block after block in older, less afluent parts of Nampa filled with vacant and foreclosed homes, a young man arrested for stealing a bag of chicken from a local grocery store, and in, what is to me, the most graphic depiction of the dire straits some here are facing, someone in our neighborhood is so desperate for cash they are setting out in the dead of night to collect aluminum cans from recycling bins set out on the curb for pick up.

People here are struggling.

Those who are unemployed and eligible for unemployment insurance aren't going to become rich off their average $229 per week benefit, but they may be able to keep their home and provide necessities for their families. One less foreclosed home, one less vacant rental, one more family with hope that they may find work before they lose everything. One less person thinking the unthinkable. One more family still contributing to the economy.

In a perfect world these families would be able to find work and unemployment insurance would be unnecessary. This isn't a perfect world.

Do the right thing, Walt. When the unemployment extension comes before the House again, vote for it. Vote for your constituents who are wondering how they'll make it through the winter without work. Vote for small businesses who need middle-class families with the resources to buy their goods and services. Vote for this imperfect necessity. Tell your constituents they are worth the investment.

Sisyphus has been living up to his namesake at 43rd State Blues. In dual post-election analyses he has advanced the theme that the blowout Idaho Democrats endured this election had at least as much to do with self-inflicted voter apathy as with a "Republican wave," as the media and Democratic Party officials have asserted.

In doing so, he contrasted the successful campaign of Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to the losing campaign of Idaho 1st District Congressman Walt Minnick in 2010 and he crunched the numbers, such as they are, in comparing the losing gubernatorial races of Independent Keith Allred running on the Democratic ticket in 2010 and Democrat Jerry Brady, the nominee in 2006. The candidates on the Democratic ticket in both 2010 races ran sharply away from the Democratic Party, shunning Democratic identity and disparaging Democratic ideals to the detriment of their campaigns and the Idaho Democratic Party, as Sisyphus and others have concluded.

Now, through Randy Stapilus at Ridenbaugh Press and Betsy Russell at Eye On Boise, we find links to more corroboration of this theme at the interstices blog. In analyzing the voting in Ada County legislative races, interstices concluded that Boise Democrats didn't show up at the polls and surmised:

What happened appears to best be described as a systemic failure on the part of the Democratic Party to put on a campaign at the top of the ticket that would help drive voter turnout at the lower races such as for State Legislature.

More fascinating is interstices' comparison of the Democratic voting patterns in presidential years with those in gubernatorial years, as shown in this snip of a chart accompanying the election analysis. "Despite favorable trends in Democratic votes the past six or eight years Allred was unable to hold to a common pattern of outperforming the Democratic Presidential nominee two years previous," writes interstices. "Only in 1998 did the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate not do as well as the Democratic Presidential candidate two years previous."

Indeed, this contradicts the attempt at revisionism employed by Walt Minnick a week before the election when he optimistically informed the New York Times that President Obama was a "drag on the ballot" in 2008.

Check out interstices for more election analysis and other interesting bits of info.

What lessons the Idaho Democratic Party takes away from this election remain to be seen, but it would be a grave, maybe fatal, mistake to conclude that they simply fell victim to a "Republican wave."

The "experts" have spoken and disagree that Minnick's negative ads affected the outcome of the 1st Congressional District race. Citing only internal polls showing "the ads had great effect," the "experts" say Minnick did what he had to do to give himself a chance to win. A great effect on what and on whom, as the thirty-point underdog laughs all the way to Washington. That's hilarious, but not in a good way.

Here are a few questions the "experts" don't answer. Last cycle (2008) Walt picked up 45% of the vote in Canyon County; this cycle only 36%. Making up 22.2% of the population, how did Walt's ads affect the Hispanic vote in Canyon County? How about the other heavily Hispanic populations in Owyhee, Payette and Washington counties? Did Hispanic voters turn out at all? If so, how many turned out for Labrador? Of those, how many did so because of Minnick's ads?

Here's a thought. As Idaho Democrats, instead of crawling home licking our wounds wondering what in the hell happened, how about we invest in some actual exit polling so we have some idea what did actually happen. The guessing game doesn't appear to be working so well for us. Neither did the "we'll disguise ourselves as Republicans" game.

Here it is. Election day 2010. Not quite the election day of 2008. Not even close, really. Then, you could almost feel the pulse of a Democratic wave surging. Yes, even in Idaho. Records were set at Democratic caucuses, hope for a new president was overflowing in a raucous Taco Bell Arena and like sharks in bloody water, Democrats could sense that Bill Sali would no longer represent the 1st District. Now, especially in Idaho, that pulse is indiscernible--nearly a flat-line--as weary Democrats stumble to the polls today.

Walt Minnick is going to lose tonight and he won't have anyone but himself to blame. Despite what Minnick says today (that Obama was "a drag on the ballot"), in 2008 he needed all 175,898 voters that turned out in that Democratic wave to eke out a 1.2 percentage-points win over Bill Sali. It was just 4,211 votes more than enough. What happened? Both Minnick's internal and independent polls showed Minnick up by six percentage points within two weeks of that election. Conventional wisdom says that in the end voters "came home," that the 1st District really is that conservative and even a hugely unpopular incumbent with a 41% unfavorable rating could only be beaten in a squeaker. That's the conventional wisdom, anyway. In Idaho it's often wrong.

This is a state where blue turf is a selling point and a large portion of the population consider it a complement to be "peculiar." Conventional wisdom doesn't always apply. In the case of the 2008 1st District race, especially. Something else closed the gap between Minnick and Sali in the final two weeks of that race which the conventional wisdom ignores. In late October, fliers containing the social security numbers of Bill Sali and his wife were sent to voters in the district. The Salis were, justifiably, angry; Idaho Democrats were contrite and Minnick's camp was unapologetic. Undecideds now had a reason to vote and came out for the suddenly and unlikely now-sympathetic Bill Sali. Minnick was lucky then; his blunder nearly cost him the election. He won't be so lucky again.

In 2010, with Minnick plunging from a 30 point lead (in some polls) to a dead heat within two months, outsiders proclaim the 1st District race to be "finally conforming" to national trends. In doing so they again overlook the uniquely peculiar nature of Idaho.

Idahoans, and independents in particular, are especially hostile to negative campaigning. More than most, independents here have a cynical view of politics and political parties and it's that cynicism that accounts for their unusually large numbers in Idaho. What Idahoans admire is authenticity--more so than ideology, whether conservative, progressive or somewhere in between.

Walt Minnick had nearly convinced the electorate of his authenticity but sealed his own fate by deciding to go negative, and in particularly vicious fashion, on Raul Labrador. In mid-September the campaign launched the first of three ads targeting Labradors's work as an immigration attorney. The campaign insisted this was to highlight Labrador's hypocrisy on immigration, not to denigrate his profession. What it did was give otherwise ambivalent conservatives a reason to support Labrador. From dignitaries like former Governor Phil Batt to the rank and file like blogger Clayton Cramer, Minnick's hostile ads solidified Labrador's previously wavering support. The ads also gave otherwise ambivalent Democrats more reason to oppose Minnick. The only apparent increased support from Minnick's ads came from the unsavory ranks of white nationalists.

When pundits talk about Idaho's 1st district race, they will likely include the dramatic implosion of Republican primary candidate Vaughn Ward. They will also likely include the dramatic loss of Walt Minnick and conventional wisdom will chalk it up to a Democrat in a very conservative district caught up in a Republican wave.

The conventional wisdom will also be wrong. This was Walt Minnick's election to lose, and he will.

Today, there is no Democrat more disappointed in Walt Minnick than I.

Update 11.4.10 9:25: As predicted Walt Minnick lost to Raul Labrador, although the margin of victory at 51 to 41.3 was wider than even I expected. Notably but as expected, Walt did especially poorly in the heavily Hispanic populations of Canyon and Owyhee counties: 36.1% to 56.2% and 34.7% to 56.6% respectively.

Walt Minnick has become a hero to white nationalists. With his continuing descent into bigotry, using his first "Willie Horton" ad as just a warm up to his most recent "Willie Horton" ad (which even the Libertarian Republican calls "nasty" and on par with Sharron Angle's ad), white nationalists are praising Walt Minnick for his "patriotism."

The latest evidence appears at the white nationalist website VDARE.com, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as "an anti-immigration hate website" which "also regularly publishes articles by prominent white nationalists, race scientists and anti-Semites." It would be hard to argue with the SPLC assessment after reading some of VDARE's material. Witness this excerpt from a July 21, 2003 post by Sam Francis entitled, "Abolishing America, Cont’d: Mexicans Want Reparations Too":

"America was defined — almost explicitly, sometimes very explicitly — as a white nation, for white people, and what that means is that there is virtually no figure, no law, no policy, no event in the history of the old, white America that can survive the transition to the new and non-white version. Whether we will want to call the new updated version ‘America’ at all is another question entirely."

Now in a post claiming "Many Immigration Patriots Poised To Win House Races," VDARE.com champions Minnick as an "immigration patriot," proclaiming Idaho's 1st District race "one of the most important races" to watch.

Republicans are not always the strongest immigration patriots. In Idaho, incumbent Democrat Walt Minnick has a pretty good record on immigration co-sponsoring the SAVE Act and expanded E-Verify. When given Numbers USA’s survey, he answered in favor of reducing legal and illegal immigration (though not favoring ending birthright citizenship.)

[...]

In fact, of course, there is a glaring “obvious reason” why Minnick decided to be a patriot. White Idahoans still make up over 91% of the population of Minnick’s district. They never voted to make their days as a “lily white enclavefinished”. And they are not keen on attorneys who helped bring forth these unwanted changes.

Walt Minnick "decided to be a patriot." That's what they think. To them, racism is patriotic and even they see Minnick as playing to the fears of "white Idahoans."

That isn't patriotism. It's pathetic.

Update 10.31.10, 12:10: Minnick has won the endorsement of another racist group.

Earlier this week, Brian Griffin aka “Hunter Wallace,” writer for the overtly white supremacist website Occidental Dissent, put out his own list of endorsements. Over 130 candidates are on his list, and all are running on an anti-immigrant platform and have received the “true reformer” seal of approval from NumbersUSA. Wallace, in his article, directs his readership back to NumbersUSA’s report cards. NumbersUSA is part of an array of anti-immigrant groups founded or funded by John Tanton, a white nationalist who has single-handedly orchestrated the anti-immigrant movement in the U.S. Also part of the Tanton Network are Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) among others.

“I will flatly state that immigration is by far the most important issue facing the White Nationalist community. In the long run, changing racial demographics will determine the electoral context in which every other issue is decided, and ultimately the fate of our race on this continent.”

Congressman Walt Minnick is often touting his business experience as making him uniquely qualified to represent Idaho's 1st District. Just last week at a Meridian Chamber of Commerce forum, Minnick said that "his centrist record and 30 years of business experience put him in the best spot to help restore America’s financial health."

So with all of Walt's business experience, why does he feel the need to lie about it?

On his campaign website biography, Minnick lists his 16-year tenure as President of TJ International as an example of his "proven leadership." He also claims that under his tenure, the company "never failed to make money."

Trouble is, company documents show otherwise.

In a press release dated February 14, 1992, TJ International announced the first annual loss in the company history.

Why Minnick would say that the company never lost money under his tenure is unclear when the facts obviously say otherwise.

Minnick's tenure at Trus Joist is a story unto itself, but here is a brief history.

After leaving the Nixon White House in 1974 amid the ongoing scandal of Watergate, Minnick struggled for six months to find a job. In a letter obtained by Freedom of Information Act request dated December 17, 1974, he told Watergate Special Prosecutors,

In looking for a job last winter and spring, a number of prospective employers were hesitant to "take a chance" on me because I was one of those "out of work lawyers from the Nixon White House." The chairman of the Board of Amfac Corporation expressed a similar view when it was suggested that I might be an appropriate candidate for their Board of Directors.

This was in sharp contrast to the success of Hank Paulson, Walt's good friend and fellow Harvard Business School alum with whom he worked at the Pentagon and the Nixon White House. Hank was not only "well connected enough to get the job [as assistant to John Ehrlichman, Nixon's chief domestic advisor], but well connected enough to resign in the thick of the Watergate scandal without ever getting caught up in the fallout." He landed a job with the now infamous Goldman Sachs, rising through the ranks to become CEO, and the rest is history. And it was no doubt Hank and Walt's close friendship that would later deliver a job at Goldman for Minnick's son Adam, also a Harvard MBA.

No such prestigious landing for Minnick; he finally found a job as corporate secretary at Trus Joist Corporation. He rose to President and COO in 1979, eventually becoming CEO in 1986.

With Walt at the helm, Trus Joist launched into several diversification efforts, one "into energy management systems, which cost Trus Joist some $2.5 million over 18 months," according to the company history. The other was into the wood window industry, acquiring Norco Windows of Wisconsin and Dashwood Industries of Canada, which would eventually be merged into the Outlook Window Partnership.

It was this diversification, as the Outlook partnership continued to drag on company profits, that would ultimately lead to Minnick's resignation from Trus Joist in 1995, amid disagreements with the board over the direction of the company. Minnick wanted to continue diversification but the Board had other ideas. It cost the company $40 million to divest itself of the window partnership.

Nearly everyone would want to shine the best light on the past, but as a congressman running for reelection asking voters to trust his business experience, is a man who lies about that experience (and this isn't the first) really worthy of that trust?

The November 2010 edition of Reader's Digest featured an article by Michael Crowley entitled "Tin Soldiers: Phony vets, fake heroes—there's an epidemic of lying about military service." Crowley writes about how surprisingly widespread this phenomena is, using examples of people like David Budwah who claimed to be an Iraq and Afghanistan war hero when he actually served as a radio specialist in Japan. But, Crowley says, much more offensive is a politician who does so.

Here's an excerpt [emphasis added]:

What would possess these impostors to spin their disgraceful lies? Some, like Budwah, are looking for special treatment. Others may just want respect. Damian Pace, who never finished his military training but occasionally wore U.S. Army uniforms and badges meant for combat veterans, told a federal investigator in 2009 that he wanted to "look cool."

Those guys may be pathetic, but they're not as pernicious as the politicians who want to win votes by tricking us into thinking they're heroes. One of them was Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who while running for the U.S. Senate last March claimed to a group of veterans that he "served in Vietnam." Not quite: Blumenthal got at least five deferments to avoid that war, before joining the reserves.

Blumenthal's lie is not at all unlike that of Idaho's Congressman Walt Minnick. While Blumenthal spoke those words himself, Walt Minnick let his 2008 campaign Facebook make the false claim that he served his country in Vietnam and then blamed an intern for using the misleading language.

Here's a screenshot of the Facebook page captured in October of 2009:

There's the lie in the Information section right below the part about Walt's life of "strong and principled leadership." As has been pointed out, Walt never served in Vietnam; once his deferments expired and while fighting his hometown draft board—all the way to the Presidential appeal level—Walt joined the ROTC to avoid his impending draft and he says so in his own words. Eighteen months of Walt's two-year Reserve obligation were spent in the Pentagon, the remainder was spent in the Nixon White House.

It should be noted that during the Vietnam era, National Guard and Reserve units weren't used in the way they are today; units were rarely mobilized and draft-eligible men could usually avoid combat by joining these units, swelling their ranks and making it nearly impossible to join without someone with connections pulling strings.

The Vietnam service lie remained on Minnick's official 2008 campaign Facebook page until March 29 of this year when, in response to the original posting of "The Vietnam Service Lie," his campaign manager sent this explanation (the "official FB page" referenced below was set up in February):

That's after he vigorously defended the use of the Facebook page language of "serving his country in Vietnam" in his initial email response a day earlier.

The post was not corrected (although it was updated to include a statement from Foster) because there was nothing to correct. As we know from the Blumenthal example, "serving in Vietnam" is widely interpreted to mean combat service. To say a couple of temporary duty assignments of 10 days or less is equivalent to Vietnam service is a grave injustice to the hundreds of thousands of young combat troops who weren't wealthy enough or well-connected enough to successfully fight a draft board or lucky enough to land a cushy assignment in the Pentagon, and to the tens of thousands who lost their lives serving their country in the jungles of Southeast Asia.

To say that Walt Minnick has never lied about his service is just factually inaccurate, unless you also say that Walt Minnick isn't responsible for the content of his campaign materials. That 2008 campaign Facebook page has since been deleted but the lie it contained made its way into many web biographies.

It first appeared in Minnick's Wikipedia entry on March 3, 2010 where it was edited to read that Minnick was a "veteran who served in Vietnam" by someone with an IP address in Moscow, Idaho using a Road Runner ISP. That claim remained until June 1, 2010 when it was finally changed to reflect Minnick's actual service again by someone with an IP address in Boise with an Integra Telecom ISP.

The biography of Minnick at uuworld.org, the official online publication of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, credits Minnick with a "tour of duty in Vietnam."

Since our initial posting in March, Boardroom Insiders has not modified their profile of Minnick, still crediting him with a "tour of duty in Vietnam." However, Walt Minnick's biography at LivPAC, the PAC established by Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, no longer appears among the candidates the PAC is endorsing for 2010. LivPAC was founded to "help elect Democratic Members of Congress who support the policies and principles that will make the U.S. government a partner in building and maintaining livable communities that embody smart growth principles." The PAC endorsed Minnick in 2008, held a fundraiser for him July 15, 2009 and his biography appeared in their candidate endorsements through at least March 28, 2010. It's unclear whether Minnick no longer fits the profile of candidates the PAC is endorsing or if there is some other reason for his removal from the list (an email to the PAC requesting clarification has not been returned) but this was his biography as it appeared in March of 2010:

Although Walt is no longer claiming to have served in Vietnam, these are just a few examples of how that lie has migrated into the public perception and, unlike his recent strenuous objections to a misleading statement from his opponent, Walt has made no apparent attempt to correct the perception. If anything he has continued to perpetuate it with ads like this which, while technically correct in saying he "served his country in the U.S Army during Vietnam," omit important context.

How pernicious is it for a politician to lie about his service, then claim to never have lied while continuing to allow others to perpetuate the lie on his behalf?

What does it say about the character of a man whose defining moment in life never really happened?

In the final month of the 2008 election cycle, embroiled in a tight race with then-Congressman Bill Sali, then-candidate Walt Minnick told the Idaho Statesman editorial board that the turning point in his life was his decision to resign from the Nixon Administration after events that came to be known as the Saturday Night Massacre. October 20, 1973 at the hight of the Watergate investigation, Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus resigned rather than carry out an order from President Nixon to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox who was demanding that Nixon comply with a subpoena to turn over the White House tapes. At the time, Minnick was the Special Assistant to the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget and Chief of OMB's Federal Drug Management Division.

Walt says "he walked in and quit" that Monday and, when relating these events, has repeated the story that he resigned in protest immediately after the Saturday Night Massacre. Trouble is, there aren't any facts to back that up.

A Freedom of Information Act request produced no resignation letter from the Nixon Library, the White House Digest from the period records no resignation from Walter Minnick and he testified to Congress that he remained employed in the Nixon Administration through January of 1974.

Minnick's hometown paper, the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, carried no such story reporting his resignation in the days following the Saturday Night Massacre. To understand the significance of that, one has to understand that this is a hometown paper that had a special relationship with the Minnicks. From a story about a seven-year-old Walter growing pumpkins, to his time in school-boy patrol, to his graduation from Harvard, if Skeeter Minnick sneezed it ended up in the Union-Bulletin.

This is the paper that ran the front-page headline "Minnick Mentioned in Watergate Coverage," June 26, 1973 the day after White House Counsel John Dean mentioned Minnick's name in his televised testimony. It was big news in Walla Walla -- the whole town was abuzz -- and the paper reported that Minnick's parents weren't speaking to the press about it.

If Walter Minnick had resigned following the Saturday Night Massacre -- especially "in protest" -- that would have also been big news in Walla Walla. The Union-Bulletin carried the front-page story of the events but no mention of Minnick's name. A month later they printed a story, referring to Minnick as a government official -- no mention of any resignation.

This is supposedly THE defining moment of Congressman Walt Minnick's life, and it never happened -- at least not the way he says it did. That says more about the character of this man than any vote he's taken, any attack he's made on an opponent, than any pandering for votes he's done.

It has become a defining moment, alright. As a Democrat, it couldn't be more disappointing.

Noted here as "perhaps the strangest vote of his term and in what [could] easily be described as Sali-esque," back in July Minnick was one of only four House members to vote against a resolution supporting peace efforts in Thailand.

Idaho Blue Dog Congressman Walt Minnick has made his opposition to the Troubled Asset Relief Program a centerpiece of his campaign this cycle -- even using that opposition in his first ad of the season -- despite the program doing "surprisingly well," according to reports.

The ad was called "one of the smoothest Republican campaign videos of the year" by a highly-respected Idaho political observer and features Minnick narrating the line, "I've said 'No' to Wall Street bailouts." It drew criticism from many, including that Minnick was misleading voters into believing that he had voted against TARP when he was not actually in office at the time and had no vote.

Minnick's campaign countered that he had strongly opposed TARP during the 2008 campaign and that the ad was consistent with his views of the program since, as Betsy Z. Russell reported in the Spokesman-Review:

John Foster, Minnick’s campaign manager, said Minnick was a “loud” opponent of the TARP bill during his 2008 campaign, spoke out against it in congressional hearings since taking office and voted against other bailout measures, including a symbolic vote against funding TARP and a vote against an auto industry bailout. “What Walt said in the ad is true,” Foster said. “He’s been consistent.”

What the campaign doesn't want you to know is that in a December, 2008 interview with the Idaho Statesman editorial board [audio here, relevant portion at 19:30], just prior to assuming office, Minnick described TARP as performing "slightly better" than expected and said that "the way they are using it made more sense than doing nothing." He concluded that the program deserved an overall grade of C minus -- at least a passing grade.

Well, well, well. That must have been before he supposedly "didn't drink the [Obama] Kool-Aid," and it sure doesn't seem to meet the definition of a "loud" or "consistent" opponent.

For what it's worth, Minnick was right about TARP back then. As reported in Bloomberg last week, "the much-maligned bailout program made money on most Wall Street investments and cost less than expected."

The Treasury Dept.'s investments in banks through the Troubled Asset Relief Program have done surprisingly well. Lower-than-expected losses on auto and insurance company rescues, as well as the financial markets' return to strength, mean the $700 billion rescue plan launched in October 2008 will cost less than one-tenth its initial price tag. "The TARP may well be the best and most useful federal program that has ever been despised by the public," says Douglas J. Elliott, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former JPMorgan Chase (JPM) managing director.

[...]

"When all is said and done, this program will be viewed as one of the most effective and least costly forms of assistance" in the financial crisis, says Herbert M. Allison Jr., the former Merrill Lynch (MER) executive and Fannie Mae (FNM) official who has shepherded the rescue effort for Geithner and leaves the job on Sept. 30.

In a Wall Street Journal article last week, debunked as a "false hit piece" by Think Progress, Jonathon Weisman asserts that "loyalty to Obama costs Democrats." Weisman attempts to make his point using our own 1st District incumbent Democrat who is running an anti-Obama campaign, complete with scary, unflattering Obama imagery. He even quotes John Foster, campaign manager for Congressman Walt Minnick, saying, "From Day One, we didn't drink the Kool-Aid."

So when, exactly, did "day one" begin, when did President Obama's policies turn into "Kool-Aid" and when did Minnick"s refusal to "drink" it begin?

Was it January 30, 2008 when then-candidate Minnick sent out a press-release endorsing Obama for President?

Walt Minnick, First Congressional District candidate and long-time Idaho businessman, announced today that he's backing Senator Barack Obama for President.

"Senator Obama will bring the kind of change we so desperately need in Washington," said Minnick. "I admire his passion for our country, his ability to bring people together across party lines to get things done and his commitment to elevating the political dialogue above the petty
partisan bickering we've seen far too much of in the last few years."

Nope, sounds like a little "Kool-Aid" sipping there.

Was it three days later when then-candidate Obama appeared in Boise's raucous, over-flowing Taco Bell Arena?

Nope, looks like Minnick was definitely imbibing in some Obama "Kool-Aid" there.

Was it February 24, 2009 when Minnick released this statement following the President's first address to the nation?

"Like all Idahoans, I join the president in a commitment to work together. These times are too tough and there is too much to be done to linger over the points where we differ. [...] I join the president, my fellow Americans and Idahoans in standing up, ready to go to work."

[Minnick] praised President Barack Obama for his "grace and warmth" and predicted that he will become "perhaps the greatest president any of us will see in our lifetimes."

Nope, that's definitely a big ol' gulp of Obama "Kool-Aid" there!

Was it May 28, 2009 when Minnick was praising Obama's education policy?

Saying that President Obama has “hit the nail directly on the head” about changing the national educational atmosphere, Rep. Walt Minnick, D-Idaho, spoke to entrepreneurs this morning at the IdaVation conference in Boise.

Nope, sounds like Hope is still afloat there.

So when, exactly, did Minnick decide to join the Just Say Nope to Hope brigade?

Here's a theory. The Rasmussen Report shows the Presidential Approval Index slowly declining from double-digit positive numbers to double-digit negatives in the twenty-two months since the inauguration. June 21, 2009 the index turned negative for the first time and, except for a small bump back into positive single digits a few days later, has hung in negative territory since.

More than likely that's when Minnick decided Obama's policies had turned to "Kool-Aid" and to save his political life he had to abstain from partaking, despite downing big old gulps and riding the "Kool-Aid" wave into office.

What do you call someone whose policy positions sway with the political winds?

This is Margaret from McCall. She lost her home, her business and her husband all in the same year. She couldn't afford health insurance and still pay her rent, so she let her health insurance lapse. Then came the medical emergency which required a life-flight transport to Boise. Four surgeries later she owes thousands of dollars in medical bills she doesn't know how she's going to pay.

She was one of the more than 130,000 Idahoans without health insurance living in Congressman Walt Minnick's district as the nation battled over health care reform. Congressman Minnick said he couldn't vote to make health insurance more accessible for people like Margaret because we couldn't afford it.

The tax cut for him and the other wealthiest two percent of Americans will add about $750 billion to the deficit over ten years. Not only that, but Congressman Minnick said if he can't give Jim Risch a tax cut, he doesn't want Margaret, or anyone else to have one either.

Before the campaign in Idaho's 1st Congressional District had spiraled into a contest over who was the more anti-government, anti-Democratic, anti-Mexican candidate, Congressman Walt Minnick was crusading for the commercial real estate industry, proposing relief that, he says, could prevent a crisis leading to a double-dip recession. Although he does acknowledge that there are risks to small banks and supports proposals like Minnick's, Paul Merski, chief economist of the Independent Community Bankers of America, says some of the statistics of possible losses are "sensationalized," according to The Hill. Others have noted that commercial property prices have stabilized, although well below their 2007 peak, and describe the market as "choppy," but few are sounding crisis alarms.

So why is Congressman Minnick so concerned about the commercial real estate industry? Why would this Blue Dog congressman, who wears his anti-government credentials like a medal, be advocating government intervention now? Could the legislation he has been working on for nearly a year have been written to benefit a specific developer and is that developer a campaign contributor? Or is Minnick using his influence to benefit his son, a Denver-based commercial real estate investment manager?

For answers, let's back up a year.

In August of 2009 Congressman Minnick gave an interview to Scott Lanman of the well-known financial and business news source, Bloomberg. Lanman was reporting on the troubled status of the commercial real estate industry and wrote:

One developer based in U.S. Representative Walt Minnick’s district is in a bind because a lower appraisal means he can’t renew the full amount of a $10 million, three-year loan he took out for a recent project, the first-term Democrat from Idaho said in an interview last week. The person may be forced into bankruptcy, said Minnick, 66, without identifying the developer.

Note that $10 million amount, then fast forward ten months to June 16, 2010 and the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman Minnick is introducing his amendment to HR 5297, the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010. The bill is designed to help free-up credit markets for small businesses, in part, through the creation of the Small Business Lending Fund which would provide incentives for smaller banks to make new small business loans.

A small business is broadly thought of as one having less than 500 employees or annual receipts less than $7 million, but the Small Business Administration size standards vary widely by industry. The SBA currently offers several loan guarantee programs to qualifying small businesses, the most common are 7 (a) and 504 loans with maximum loan sizes of $2 million. The Small Business Jobs and Credit Act would permanently increase those loan maximums to $5 million and, through the Small Business Lending Fund, give incentives to community banks based on the amount of its small business lending.

As Minnick described it on the floor that day, his amendment "adds commercial real estate to the category of assets that can be covered by small business loan guarantees and increases the amount of those assets up to $10 million."

He went on:

This allows a category of assets that is now being held by small business men throughout the country, a category that is very large that needs to be refinanced because commercial real estate loans are short term and banks simply do not have the capacity in the current market to finance and process all of the commercial loans that need to be reprocessed over the next 3 to 5 years. By making these smaller loans that our community banks have made to strip shopping centers, to restaurants, to small business, making them more liquid by applying a Federal guarantee, they will be able to sell these loans in the market. The bank will get cash and be able to make another commercial loan.

Minnick's amendment allows commercial real estate loans of up to $10 million to be considered small business loans--double what would be the maximum amount of any other small business loan under this bill--and it passed on a voice vote.

Is it just a coincidence that $10 million happens to be the amount of the loan Minnick told Bloomberg his constituent needed to avoid bankruptcy? Maybe, but it won't be the last time we hear about that $10 million amount.

The next day the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 passed the House 241-182 and will come back to the House for reconciliation after passing the Senate last week 61-38.

Jump forward another month to late July of this year. Congressman Minnick is gaining some national attention for legislation he introduced in the House Financial Services Committee to "revitalize" the commercial real estate industry. He says his legislation "could stabilize the commercial real estate market and free overextended small banks to lend to small businesses in their communities," according to the Idaho Statesman.

Minnick's proposal allows community banks to take their portfolio of good commercial real estate loans and sell them to so-called big money-center banks. The bigger banks package the loans as investments. If they're rated high enough, the U.S. Treasury will back them.

If to you that sounds roughly like the sort of thing that started the whole financial crisis, you're not alone. Even Minnick acknowledges that it does, although he says this would differ from the mortgage crisis in that the small banks who are the originators would be the first to lose if they fail. And he insists that his plan is not a bailout. "I don’t think we are putting any taxpayer money at risk. We are not injecting any taxpayer money into any financial institution," Minnick told The Hill in July.

Coincidently or not, shortly after his bill was introduced in the House Financial Services Committee, citing "job growth" and "private property rights" as key factors in their decision, the Idaho Association of REALTORS "enthusiastically" endorsed Minnick's reelection bid.

His bill was introduced July 22 and received a full committee hearing July 29. According to The Hill:

Minnick is leading an effort with lawmakers from both parties to push legislation creating a Treasury-run program that would provide between $15 billion and $25 billion in guarantees for commercial real estate investments. The guarantees are meant to boost liquidity and confidence. [...] Minnick’s proposal aims primarily to help banks with $10 billion or less in assets that issue loans of $10 million or less.

Once again Minnick's legislation to help the commercial real estate industry includes loans up to $10 million--coincidentally the same amount that this developer needed?

So who is this real estate developer that Congressman Minnick seems determined to help avoid bankruptcy? We don't know and Minnick doesn't say and therefore we also don't know whether or not this developer is also a campaign contributor. We do know that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, through June 30, 2010 Minnick has received $29,020 from the real estate industry this campaign cycle, including $14,520 in individual contributions. The FEC database lists these individual contributors who reside in Idaho and have contributed at least $1,000 this cycle:

$3,000 - DeWayne Bills, retired real estate developer from Nampa

$2,400 - John K. French, retired real estate investor from Ketchum

$1,000 - Elliott Mark, real estate manager from Eagle

$1,300 - Winston H. Moore, real estate developer from Boise, also a member of the Minnick campaign committee

$2,400 - Ron Sali, real estate developer from Eagle

Walt Minnick also has a more personal connection to the commercial real estate industry. His son, Adam Minnick, is a Senior Vice President at Amstar, a privately held Denver-based commercial real estate investment manager/developer with more than $1.65 billion in assets under management, according to the company website. Like his father, Adam has an MBA from Harvard Business School and he has been in the commercial real estate industry for over eleven years. Prior to joining Amstar in 2005, Adam managed commercial real estate portfolios for the London office of Goldman Sachs and was an analyst in the real estate division of Paine Webber.

Does this personal connection to the industry have any influence in the legislation introduced by Minnick? Is this why Minnick has been interested in "revitalizing" the industry? Would Minnick be less inclined to advocate for government intervention in the commercial real estate industry if his son weren't involved?

All interesting questions, and unfortunately questions for which we may never have answers.

Update: The ad is getting lots of national attention from progressive-types... and none of it good. Daily Kos front-paged the ad today and, without mincing words, said some of what I'd been thinking but hadn't gotten around to writing yet -- especially this:

Not only is this gratuitous, but it hurts his state's small but growing Democratic Party. Believe it or not, Idaho has a rapidly growing Latino community, and Democratic chances in the state depend on nurturing that community and bringing it into the progressive fold.

If Democrats are ever going to make any inroads into ruby-red Canyon County it will be through the Hispanic population. Thanks, John and Walt, for setting us back decades in this effort.

Also, for more local Democrats' reaction, don't miss the goings on at 43rd State Blues; as usual Serephin doesn't disappoint.

Walt Minnick's "strategy" is "lunacy" writes David Keene in The Hill [emphasis added]:

Outside the Congress, Democratic loyalists like Paul Begala have been excoriating candidates who have distanced themselves from the president, Nancy Pelosi and the programs they all so fervently embraced in the heady days following the Democratic sweep of 2008. Begala went so far last week as to name some of those he considered “cowards”: Reps. Jason Altmire (Pa.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Walt Minnick (Idaho) and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), among others, seem to have set him off for not being willing to go quietly, but their numbers have increased since as more and more Democratic incumbents try to elbow their way to the lifeboats.

Actually, Begala had a point in describing the “strategy” of distancing one’s candidacy from the party, its leaders and the president as “lunacy.” Candidates who run away from their leaders usually lose at both ends. They are seen as “cowards” by their party’s activist base, the opposition party’s voters don’t buy it, and independent or swing voters see them as unprincipled politicians more interested in a job and a paycheck than in serving their constituents.

This isn't the first time the Idaho congressman has used carefully crafted language to fit within a technical definition of the truth while leaving a different impression. Embroiled in a brouhaha with FactCheck.org over his first television ad of the campaign season, Minnick and his campaign staff would have you believe that he has always opposed bailouts, but that isn't really so. In fact he lambasted then-Congressman Bill Sali, his opponent in September of 2008, for taking the exact position that he is now touting as his.

The issue here is a television ad that author, journalist and long time Idaho political observer Randy Stapilus described as, "One of the smoothest Republican campaign videos of the year." Not bad, except Minnick is an incumbent Democrat.

In the ad Congressman Minnick says, "I've had to say 'no' far more often than I've said 'yes.' I've said 'no' to more government spending; 'no' to President Obama's big health-care plan; 'no' to Wall Street bailouts."

This quickly drew the attention of FactCheck because, of course, Minnick was not in office in the fall of 2008 and couldn't have voted against the bailouts. Minnick spokesman John Foster objected, getting FactCheck to run a correction:

"We originally reported that Minnick’s ad said he 'voted' against the bailout. His campaign manager John Foster objected, pointing out that what Minnick says in the ad is: 'I’ve said no' to Wall Street bailouts. "It’s true that, as a candidate in 2008, he did denounce passage of the bill. He would have been more accurate to say in his ad that he 'spoke out against' the bailouts."

The Idaho Statesman's Dan Popkey reports that "Foster had preemptively defended the ad, the first of the campaign, telling the Statesman on Tuesday, 'We were very careful with the language,'" and including FactCheck Director Brooks Jackson's email response, "We posted a correction. We still think it's pretty cheeky to say you 'said no' to something you had no say in at the time. But as Minnick's campaign manager says, language matters."

Popkey's piece also included a statement John Foster said he provided to FactCheck that wasn't published:

Walt has a consistent and clear record against Wall Street bailouts, even going so far as to publicly denounce them in a statement to the Treasury Secretary during a hearing of the Financial Services Committee. For Walt this is about more than just a vote. It is about making it clear to the people of Idaho that he has always stood against these kinds of bailouts. His record has always been clear on the issue, and the ad properly reflects that.

"Always" is a tough word, but if "language matters," and it does, perhaps this should have been more carefully crafted because it isn't true to say that Walt has "always stood against these kinds of bailouts."

In an Idaho Statesman article published September 20, 2008 entitled "Simpson rips Sali for stance on economic crisis," Dan Popkey reported on the positions taken by Idaho's all Republican congressional delegation on the economic crisis, and specifically those of Representatives Mike Simpson and Bill Sali, Minnick's opponent in 2008.

But Sali, a freshman, called for a halt on federal bailouts, which have already reached more than $600 billion. Sali on Thursday sent a letter to Bush's point men in the crisis, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Co-signed by 30 other members of the conservative Republican Study Group, the letter was sent as Paulson and Bernanke and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox were meeting with congressional leaders about their plan to buy mortgage assets that can't be sold by banks and other institutions.

"...we urge you in the strongest terms possible to refrain from conducting any additional government-financed bailouts for large financial firms," wrote Sali and his colleagues. "Regardless of precautions taken, the risk to taxpayers and to the long-term future health of our economy remain just too great to justify."

No more bailouts, period. That was Sali's position at the time. A position so extreme it elicited this scathing response from his colleague, Rep. Mike Simpson, "What's his answer: to let the economy go down?" Simpson said. "Sometimes Bill puts himself in a philosophical position that's untenable that he can't get off of."

Two days later, a giddy Minnick campaign released a statement attaching themselves to Simpson's statement and lambasting Sali for his "no bailouts" position.

Here's the full press release:

Congressman Minnick would like you to believe that he's "always" been against bailouts, but it isn't exactly true and lambasting your opponent for the very position that you are now touting as yours is indeed "cheeky."

Why release an ad that required carefully crafted language and a preemptive defense? Why not just tell the plain truth? Isn't that what Idahoans are clamoring for?

This is what standing on principle looks like. Not surprisingly it doesn't come from anyone in the Idaho congressional delegation, Republican nor Democrat, but it comes from the delegation of our neighbor to the south.

"Let’s be honest about it, in the First Amendment, religious freedom, religious expression, that really express matters to the Constitution. So, if the Muslims own that property, that private property, and they want to build a mosque there, they should have the right to do so. ... [T]here's a huge, I think, lack of support throughout the country for Islam to build that mosque there, but that should not make a difference if they decide to do it. I'd be the first to stand up for their rights."

The Republicans of the Idaho delegation, Senators Crapo and Risch and Representative Simpson, are opposed to the center while attempting to acknowledge the rights of private property owners. The lone Democrat's position is a little squishy; Congressman Walt Minnick hasn't come out for or against the center but believes that it's an issue to be "decided by the people of New York City."

In a time when anti-Muslim fervor is escalating, it's a little strange to see these members of the Idaho GOP -- who "believe the United States Constitution is the greatest and most inspired document ever devised by Man" -- ignoring the Constitution's First Amendment provisions protecting the free exercise of religion.

However, Minnick's position is beyond strange. See, the tricky thing about rights is that they're not up for a vote; the majority doesn't get to decide who gets rights and who doesn't, who gets to build a religious center, and where, and who doesn't. The right to build the Cordoba House Muslim community center isn't up for a vote by any majority, no matter how angry or vocal.

Either the "Constitution is the greatest and most inspired document ever" or it's not, but regardless, each member of congress took an oath of office swearing to "protect and defend" it, no matter how unpopular it may be to do so. The entire Idaho delegation could take a lesson from Utah's senior senator on exactly what that means.

According to Agri-Pulse Communications, last week Idaho Representatives Mike Simpson and Walt Minnick were signatories on a letter from 75 members of the U.S. House of Representatives to Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack requesting that an interim permit be issued to allow planting Roundup Ready Alfalfa this fall. This just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 2007 injunction which had halted further planting of the genetically modified seed pending completion of an Environmental Impact Study by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Citing a draft finding of "no significant impact on the human environment," the letter requested partial deregulation allowing farmers to plant their inventoried seed while the agency finalizes the impact study.

The letter is a stark contrast to the one Secretary Vilsack received last month from 5o congressman and 6 senators, including Montana Senator Jon Tester, asking the secretary to block the planting of Roundup Ready Alfalfa and deny Monsanto's request for partial deregulation. "We believe that [genetically engineered] contamination will occur and it will result in significant economic harm to both the alfalfa seed and forage export markets and to the organic dairy industry," the letter argues and requests that the agency continue to regulate the genetically modified alfalfa seed. More here.

Alfalfa — the favored fare of dairy cows, beef cattle and health nuts — is an unlikely flash point for the controversy over genetically modified crops. Yet the legal fight over Roundup Ready alfalfa attests to just how far Monsanto’s massive foray into crop genetics has reached — and it is just one piece of a pair of larger, interrelated controversies in which the company is now entangled.

One centers on the environmental impacts of genetically modified crops. Evidence is mounting that such crops, which were introduced after undergoing only cursory review, have led to the appearance of “superweeds” that have themselves mutated to survive Roundup herbicide and threaten to impose new costs on farmers and the environment. And, while the long-term human health implications of those transformed crops are still not understood, there are reports that Monsanto’s proprietary genes have contaminated traditional and organic crops, transforming the very nature of the food we eat.

But Monsanto is also embroiled in a second controversy. The company has intervened not only in the genetic architecture of the nation’s food and feed crops, but in the very business of American farming itself. Monsanto now faces mounting legal challenges from its seed-growing competitors. It appears that the saga of Roundup Ready crops is ultimately less about genetic manipulation than about corporate power. Through a comprehensive scheme of takeovers, acquisitions and alleged strong-arming of competition, Monsanto is building an empire. Along the way, it seems to be erasing the line between what is genetically engineered and what is not.

Is Roundup Ready Alfalfa the agricultural equivalent of the Deep Water Horizon and do the 75 signatories urging its use echo the feverish chants of "drill, baby, drill?" How would Monsanto "un-contaminate" genetically natural seed if so? Or perhaps the better question: Are you willing to risk finding out?

No thanks to Idaho's entire congressional delegation, soon unemployment benefits will be restored to those whose were exhausted over the last seven weeks, as President Obama signed legislation on Thursday extending the federal program through the end of November. Nearly 11,500 Idahoans who, beginning in June, saw their benefits expire while Republicans, and some Democrats, successfully obstructed the program extension will receive backdated benefits. The Idaho Department of Labor estimated that approximately 22,000 could have been affected had Congress not acted.

Despite that, the Idaho delegation, including Congressman Walt Minnick, the lone Democrat, joined most congressional Republicans with a new-found sense of "fiscal restraint" in obstructing the legislation.

Opposition marked a change of heart for many Republicans who had voted for deficit-financed unemployment benefits in the past, including twice during George W. Bush's administration. Earlier this year, Republicans twice allowed temporary unemployment measures to pass without asking for a roll call vote.

Minnick summed up the sentiment of the delegation with a statement he gave IdahoReporter.com earlier this month. "I am absolutely opposed to digging the deficit hole deeper. I want to help them, but I want that help to be paid for," and he joined Congressman Mike Simpson in voting against the extension three times.

The delegation supported a naive and shortsighted Republican-led effort to pay for the extension through the use of unobligated stimulus funds which would be a little like giving a man the money to buy a fish and taking it from the fund that would teach that man to fish. The unemployed need help but not at the expense of job creation.

It's unclear where Minnick and the rest of the delegation would have the unemployed turn for help in an economy where, according to the Twin Falls Times-News, one in eight Idahoans is receiving federal assistance just to keep food on the table, an increase of 42.5 percent from March 2009 to March 2010 which was more than double the nationwide increase of 21.1 percent during the same span.

If you like that statistic, you'll love The Business Insider's proof of a "radically shrinking" middle class:

The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.

It was definitely "an exciting week for Walt," as he notes on his campaign website, posting receipts of over $410,000 for the April through June reporting period, "his best this cycle by far," reported CQ Politics.

It was also exciting, but in a whole 'nother way, for the estimated 800 to 1,200 additional out of work Idahoans whose unemployment benefits expired this week. Wondering how you're going to keep a roof over your head and feed your family is a whole different sort of exciting than a politician's eye-popping fundraising numbers--and not the good sort of exciting.

More than 5,500 jobless Idahoans have exhausted their unemployment benefits since early June and the Idaho Department of Labor estimates that an additional 800 to 1,200 unemployed Idahoans per week will find themselves with few places to turn as their benefits expire as well. It's estimated that 22,000 unemployed Idaho workers could see their benefits cut off over the next several months if the U.S. Senate doesn't pass legislation extending them.

The House of Representatives passed an unemployment extension before leaving for the Independence Day break, but the legislation stalled in the Senate with Republicans successfully blocking any attempt to vote on the extension, saying it would add to the deficit. The Idaho delegation was unanimous in their opposition--Senators Crapo and Risch voting against cloture and Reps. Simpson and Minnick voting against the House bill. Senate Democrats expect to have enough votes to overcome the GOP filibuster next week.

Fascinating that after years of unfunded tax cuts benefiting the rich and deficit spending on two wars, Republicans are dusting off their "fiscal restraint" suits just in time to snatch the safety net out from under the poor and working class. But they aren't the only ones doing the snatching.

Just one week after voting against extending the safety net for struggling families, Walt Minnick leaked word of his "impressive" fundraising quarter--$410,000 raised for the quarter and $1.14 million cash on hand. Something tells me that that money didn't come from families struggling to make ends meet on an unemployment check. But with each receiving an average of $229 per week--and that money being pumped back into the Idaho economy to the tune of $7 million a week--$410,000 could have kept almost 1,800 Idaho families afloat for another week; for $1.14 million, nearly 5,000.

There's something particularly cruel about tallying up your largess while telling others they aren't worth the $229 a week investment. It could also be obscene. Or absurd.

The website highlights an article from The Wall Street Journal, the storied financial news organization boasting the largest circulation in the US. However the link directs readers to an article in The Washington Times, the controversial, conservative newspaper, founded by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon. The paper has never made a profit in its 28 year history and, since its inception, has been subsidized by the Unification Church.

The Washington Times and The Wall Street Journal are at opposite ends of the credibility scale and having your name in one means something entirely different from having it in the other.

Is it possible that the erroneous link was made with the wrong web address and that the WSJ actually did publish an article yesterday about Minnick's "Strong Fundraising Quarter?" Perhaps, but, as of this morning, a search of the WSJ website produced no such article.

So, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, what's the dif? They both have words... written on paper... in a somewhat organized fashion. Who cares? It's just a simple mistake.

Will money buy Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick one more term or will Idaho voters ignore conventional wisdom, leaving both of the heavily-favored money interests in the 2010 1st Congressional District race washed up? We'll know in four months.

Freshman Rep. Walt Minnick (D) raised an impressive $410,000 for his re-election effort from April to June, putting his total raised for the cycle at over $1.9 million.
Minnick, whose second-quarter fundraising performance was his best this cycle by far, began July with more than $1.1 million in cash on hand. Minnick's strong fundraising numbers top off what has been a good couple of weeks for the Congressman.

The fundraising numbers, coupled with the primary loss of the GOP's nationally recruited and heavily endorsed candidate, Vaughn Ward, to the grassroots-organized long shot, State Rep. Raul Labrador, prompted CQ Roll Call to move the race for Idaho's 1st CD from "tossup" to "leans Democratic."

Conventional wisdom would call that a reasonable move, but Idaho voters are rarely impressed by conventional wisdom.

With CQ even describing the Labrador campaign as "low-budget," Ward took a 6-1 money advantage into the May primary, then stunned the establishment with his late-inning campaign meltdown, leaving inside and outside the beltway pundits gaping at the enormity of the fall.

The takeaway? Money can buy you many things, but it can't buy you love and it can't always buy you a congressional seat.

Last Thursday, as the U.S. House of Representatives worked to wrap up business before the two-week Independence Day break, 19 roll call votes were held on a variety of issues ranging from a resolution congratulating the Government of South Africa on its first successful convictions for human trafficking to legislation extending unemployment benefits.

Included among the votes was a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the political situation in Thailand be solved peacefully and through democratic means. In part, the resolution called for the restoration of peace and stability throughout Thailand, urged all parties to renounce the use of violence and supported the goals of the roadmap for national reconciliation in order that free and fair elections could be held.

In perhaps the strangest vote of his term and in what can easily be described as Sali-esque, Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick was just one of four members voting against it—the only Democrat to do so.

While Minnick, along with the Idaho Education Association, touted his vote that day to provide additional funding for public schools as an "invest[ment] in our children ... without adding to the deficit" (after earlier voting against even bringing the legislation up for consideration), he remained silent on his vote against extending unemployment benefits—the second time in three days—and understandably so. Which sane person would tout a vote against investing in struggling families and pumping $7 million a week into a struggling economy?

He also remained silent on his vote against supporting peace and stability in Thailand making the question: Which sane person would cast such a vote?

With unanimous opposition from the Idaho delegation, yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives voted to extend unemployment benefits for Americans struggling to find work in a hostile job market. Twenty-nine Republicans joined a majority of House Democrats to pass the extension while eleven Democrats, including ten Blue Dogs, opposed. Idaho Representatives Republican Mike Simpson and Democrat Walt Minnick--one of the ten Blue Dogs--voted against.

The Idaho Statesmanreports today that these benefits pump about $7 million a week into the Idaho economy as unemployed recipients pay for basic necessities and estimate that nearly 30,000 Idahoans could see these benefits dry up over the next few months without congressional action.

John Church, a Boise economist, told the Statesman, "Unemployment checks pumped into the economy do more than keep families afloat during tough times. They are an automatic stabilizer in the economy. They help keep an economic trough from being deeper."

Wednesday, Republicans successfully filibustered an attempt to pass the extension in the Senate, ensuring that those with expiring benefits will be celebrating an austere Independence Day.

Blame Republicans for being obstructionist but what's Minnick's excuse for voting against keeping struggling families afloat and why does he want to deepen Idaho's economic trough?

Despite radical views expressed by leaders of the Tea Party Express, Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick accepted their endorsement. Now that Tea Party Express is active in supporting Arizona's new anti-immigration legislation will Minnick continue to accept their support?

"I'm pleased to have their endorsement."

That's what Congressman Minnick said last month upon learning that he had been named a Tea Party Hero and endorsed by the Tea Party Express. "They're just ordinary folks who think the government ought to balance its budget. There's nothing very radical about that," included Minnick. Campaign spokesman John Foster acknowledged that there were some fringe within the group but implied that those weren't the views of the group as a whole.

Seven months earlier this was Tea Party Express Chairman Mark Williams on CNN with Anderson Cooper:

COOPER: But I mean, Mark, what you're saying makes sense to me here when I'm hearing what you're saying. But then I read on your blog, you say -- you call the president an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

COOPER: Is that the kind of...

WILLIAMS: That's the way he's behaving.

COOPER: But I mean...

WILLIAMS: I mean, if he cares to be...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Do you believe he's Indonesian? Do you believe he's a Muslim? Do you really believe he's a welfare thug?

Calling the President "an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief" would seem radical to most ordinary folks, but that's not just some "fringe" element within the group; that's the chairman of the Tea Party Express--the group whose endorsement Congressman Minnick is "pleased" to accept.

That sound you just heard? That was the sound of a GOP congressional hopeful's campaign being flushed. It's hard to see how a candidate recovers from the week that Vaughn Ward has just had. Once the front-runner in the Republican primary to challenge Congressman Walt Minnick for Idaho's 1st Congressional District seat, Ward's campaign has all but handed the primary to State Rep. Raul Labrador, despite Ward's dominant fund-raising advantage and prominent national and state endorsements.

Ward's latest faux pas, reported late this morning, is that he failed to pay his property taxes on time and apparently overstated the value of the property on disclosure statements. That came after the early morning revelation that the U.S. Marine Corps has asked Ward to remove an ad that failed to comply with regulations prohibiting use of information and images that may imply endorsement by the military.

This very bad week began Thursday when it was reported that Ward, who had made railing against government bailouts a centerpiece of his campaign, was being supported, while he campaigned full time, by his wife who worked for the bailed-out, government-backed mortgage giant, Fannie Mae. The week only got worse Saturday with the additional news that he failed to include his wife's assets on his financial disclosure.

A befuddled Ward has countered with arguments ranging from absurd to laughable, including:

Not to mention other gems like, government jobs aren't real jobs and a GOP failure to take Congress in November means every fighter in American history has died in vain. At this rate he'll make Bill Sali look like a paragon of sanity in no time.

If this is the product of Republican Party grooming, perhaps we don't need any.

If you've been reading MGR for awhile, you've heard about the "Republicans for Walt Minnick" site that once belonged to Idaho Congressman Walt Minnick's campaign. Through the majik of the interwebs the site now belongs to some enterprising soul whose sole purpose, apparently, is to provide hilarity and nonsense on a regular basis--and they do not disappoint.

Witness:

Who could argue with "pick out the everyone that you over wishes make your loved in unison's mouth still water the most?" Impossible, and one shouldn't even try. Just accept the insanity and hilarity and move on.

Much like Idaho's 1st Congressional District.

Today we learn that the Sarah Palin-endorsed Republican candidate, Vaughn Ward (denied endorsement by the GOP establishment arm of the tea-sipping movement, Tea Party Express, choosing instead to back the Democratic-labeled incumbent Walt Minnick) who has been railing against bailouts, and gu'mit in general, is supported by his wife who works for one of those gu'mit bailed out companies, Fannie Mae.

Just accept the insanity and hilarity that will be Idaho's 1st CD race and move on.

Remember, "almost any basket chosen with love choice be a well-received gift."

Quotes For 2010

"The main thing is to keep everybody going down that road as we try to find the answers and solutions to all these problems. It'll be fun! We'll get it done." — Majority Leader Mike Moyle (R-Star) when asked in an Idaho Reports broadcast how the State House will handle making tough budget decisions this year, 1.29.10.

Quotes For 2009

"[Some politicians] wouldn't recognize the Constitution if it fell in their laps and called them Daddy." — Rep. Lenore Hardy Barrett (R-Challis) at a tea party tax protest.

"Just, you know, putting beans on the table." — former Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) when asked by Nate Shelman (670 KBOI) what he's doing these days.

"I said yesterday we hope and pray things will get better before they get worse. It's obvious to me some of you need to do a better job of praying." — Sen. Dean Cameron (R-Rupert), Joint Finance-Appropriation Committee co-chair on the grim economic forecast facing the committee.

“We’ve been called a lot of things but we’ve never been called sneaks before.” — Rep. Maxine Bell (R-Jerome) in a budget dispute with the governor's staff over legislators' computer funding.

"I’m not wearing rose-tinted glasses. But I am a glass-half-full kind of guy." — Gov. C. L. "Butch" Otter attempting to remain optimistic while delivering tough economic news in his State of the State/Budget message.

Quotes For 2008

"I am not ashamed that we use a lot of energy in this country. It has made us the most prosperous Nation on the face of the planet. ... Using energy makes us prosperous." — Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) during debate on an energy bill that, among other things, invested in alternative and renewable energy sources and repealed tax subsidies for large oil companies. (H.R.6899)

"If [Oversight Committee Chairman] Henry Waxman was interested in doing more than just showboat, we'd be there in a heartbeat. It's political grandstanding." — spokesman Wayne Hoffman explaining why Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) was absent from congressional oversight hearings into the financial crisis where, among other things, it was learned that AIG executives indulged in a lavish retreat a week after the bailout.

"You know what, campaigns are fast and furious, I accept responsibility that we don't have the right citation there, but the facts I stand by - we are correct about that." — Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) reacting to a campaign commercial fact-checking report.

"There are people out there without health care, and we need to address that, but it's not as big of a problem as some people would make it out to be" — Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) in a Lewiston, ID debate

"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." — President Bill Clinton in a speech at the 2008 DNC

"To my supporters, to my champions, to my sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits, from the bottom of my heart, thank you." — Senator Hillary Clinton in a speech at the 2008 DNC

"The America that we know, that the founding fathers envisioned, will cease to exist." — Congressman Bill Sali (R-ID-01) speaking at the state GOP convention about the possibility of a Democratically controlled White House and Congress.

"Sometimes the problems have to get larger before you can solve them. We can still drive around the potholes, so they must not be big enough." — House Speaker Lawerence Denney (R-Midvale), explaining that lawmakers still need to be convinced about the extent of road maintenance problems before they'll agree to tax or fee increases.

"Those people that believe in shooting animals through the fences . . . ought to turn the rifle the other way." — Former Governor Cecil Andrus, at sportsmen's rally, decked out in full camouflage, urging opposition to "shooter bull" operations on domestic elk farms.

"GARVEE is like swallowing a raw egg - it seems to be one of those things that's really hard to stop in the middle of." — Rep. Marv Hagedorn (R-Meridian), in comments on a package of transportation bills introduced by House GOP leaders at an emergency committee meeting.

"I'm a professional dairyman. I have milked and milked everything I can possibly milk." — State Police Maj. Ralph Powell, arguing that the state crime lab's bare-bones operation has reached its limit and now costs the state money as testing is sent to private labs.

"Idaho is ranked last in the nation in protecting the safety of children in day care centers." — Sen. Kate Kelly (D-Boise), in support of an unsuccessful move by Senate Democrats to force a daycare standards bill out of committee.

"This [anti-discrimination bill] is something we will propose every year until it passes." — Rep. Nicole LeFavour (D-Boise), responding to the latest BSU Public Policy survey in which 63 percent of Idahoans think it ought to be illegal to fire someone for being gay or seeming to be gay.

"I assumed it would be a bunch of radical college students, so to fit the part, I grew a goatee, got a revolutionary T-shirt and put on some ratty jeans." — Rep. Curtis Bowers (R-Caldwell) in an Idaho Press-Tribune opinion explaining how he disguised himself to uncover alleged communist plots.

Quotes For 2007

"Divorce is just terrible. It's one of Satan's best tools to kill America." — Rep. Dick Harwood (R-St. Maries) describing the work of the Idaho Legislature's Family Task Force.

"I am not gay; I never have been gay." Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) in a statement responding to news of his arrest and subsequent guilty plea to disorderly conduct after an incident in an airport men's room.

“Most of the hospitals in this country have Christian names. If you think Hindu prayer is great, where are the Hindu hospitals in this country? Go down the list. Where are the atheist hospitals in this country? They’re not equal.” — Rep. Bill Sali (R-ID-01) to the Idaho Press-Tribune editorial board in response to criticism of his views regarding Hindu prayer in the Senate.

"We are all Nintendo warriors today. Remember that game, that electronic game, a few years ago, push buttons zim, zam, boom and it was all over with? That is not the way you fight war, although we as a society have grown to believe that." — Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) during debate on an amendment to a bill providing for defense authorization.

"While we are Democrats and Republicans, in our hearts we are all Idahoans." — Sen. Clint Stennett (D-Ketchum), reaching out to Republicans while outlining the Democratic agenda for the 2007 legislative session.

"One of the hardest things we've had to do here is taking off our party hats." — Rep. Marv Hagedorn (R-Meridian) on a proposal to restrict Idaho's primary elections.

"This is outrageous. The people of Idaho are entitled to have their representatives base their votes on the merits of a bill, not on who backed the loser in a speaker's contest." — Former GOP Gov. Phil Batt responding to accusations of political retribution taken by House Speaker Denney (R-Midvale) on other members.

“There was one of those six projects that was removed altogether. Why? Because the senator and the representatives from that district were from the wrong political party. We need to take a step back" — Sen. Dean Cameron (R-Rupert) to the Senate when debating the GARVEE bill.

"I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself." — Gov. Butch Otter, speaking to a hunters' rally at the Statehouse.

"To get a kick out of smoking industrial hemp, it would take a cigar the size of a telephone pole." — Rep. Tom Trail (R-Moscow), downplaying the relation between hemp and its cousin marijuana

"I guess I would just make a plea saying we need the money. You know we need the money on roads." — Rep. JoAn Wood (R-Rigby), on proposed bill to collect gas tax from sales on Indian reservations.

"No one wants to carry the canoe bill." — Rep. Eric Anderson (R-Priest River), agreeing with Gov. Otter that non-motorized boats should also pay registration fees, but noting any such proposal will be a tough sell.

"I don't think we should let the threat of a lawsuit force us to implement something that's not well thought out." — Abbie Mace, Fremont County Clerk, testifying against a "modified-closed primary" bill being pushed by GOP leaders.

"There's a lot of things that I pointed out in my State of the State (address) that haven't passed. Unfortunately, I can't think of one that has." — Gov. Butch Otter, addressing reporters on the legislative session so far.

"I say let's have a hearing and take our clothes off and go after it." — Rep. Jim Clark, R-Hayden Lake, trying to get lawmakers to print his bill.